THE BIBLE. 



293 



Pentateuch, Joshua the book named after him, 

 Samuel the book of Judges, and so forth. As all 

 Hebrew history is anonymous — a sure proof that 

 people had not yet learned to lay weight on ques- 

 tions of authorship — it is not probable that this 

 tradition rests on any surer ground than conject- 

 ure ; and, of course, a scribe who saw in the sa- 

 cred books the whole outcome of Israel's history 

 would naturally leap to the conclusion that the 

 father of the Law was the author of the Penta- 

 teuch, and that the other leaders of Israel's his- 

 tory could not but be the writers of a great part 

 of the Scriptures. A more careful view of the 

 books themselves shows that the actual state of 

 the case is not so simple. In the first place, the 

 limits of the individual books are certainly not 

 the limits of authorship. The Pentateuch, as a 

 law-book, is complete without Joshua, but as a 

 history it is so planned that the latter book is its 

 necessary complement (cf., for example, Exodus 

 xvi. 35 ; Joshua v. 12 ; Genesis i. 24, 25 ; Exo- 

 dus xiii. 19 ; Joshua xxiv. 32). In truth, an au- 

 thor who wrote after the occupation of Canaan 

 could never have designed a history which should 

 relate all God's promises to Israel, and say noth- 

 ing of their fulfillment. But, in its present shape, 

 the Pentateuch is certainly subsequent to the oc- 

 cupation, for it uses geographical names which 

 arose after that time (Hebron, Dan), refers to the 

 conquest as already accomplished (Deuteronomy 

 ii. 12, cf Numbers xv. 32 ; Genesis xii. 6), and even 

 presupposes the existence of a kingship in Israel 

 (Genesis xxxvi. 31). And with this it agrees 

 that, though there are marked differences of 

 style and language within the book of Joshua, 

 each style finds its counterpart in some section 

 of the Pentateuch. In the subsequent books we 

 find quite similar phenomena. The last chapters 

 of Judges cannot be separated from the book 

 of Samuel, and the earlier chapters of Kings 

 are obviously one with the foregoing narra- 

 tive ; while all three books contain passages 

 strikingly akin to parts of the Pentateuch and 

 Joshua (<•/., for example, the book of Deuter- 

 onomy with Joshua xxiii., 1 Samuel xii., 1 Kings 

 viii.). Such phenomena not only prove the 

 futility of any attempt to base a theory of au- 

 thorship on the present division into books, but 

 suggest that the history as we have it is not 

 one narrative carried on from age to age by suc- 

 cessive additions, but a fusion of several narra- 

 tives which partly covered the same ground and 

 were combined into unity by an editor. This 

 view is supported by the fact, that even as it 

 now stands the history sometimes gives more 



than one account of the same event, and that 

 the Pentateuch often gives several laws on the 

 same subject. Of the latter we have already 

 had one example, but for our present argument 

 the main point is not diversity of enactment, 

 which may often be only apparent, but the ex- 

 istence within the Pentateuch of distinct groups 

 of laws partly taking up the same topics. Thus 

 the legislation of Exodus xx.-xxiii. is partly re- 

 peated in chapter xxxiv., and on the passover and 

 feast of unleavened bread we have at least six 

 laws, which, if not really discordant, are at least 

 so divergent in form and conception that they 

 cannot be all from the same pen (Exodus xii. 1 

 -28; xiii. 3-10; xxiii. 15; xxxiv. 18; Leviticus 

 xxiii. 5-14 ; Deuteronomy xvi.). Of historical 

 duplicates the most celebrated are the twofold 

 history of the creation and the flood, to which 

 we must recur presently. The same kind of 

 thino; is found in the later books ; for example, 

 in the account of the way in which Saul became 

 king, where it is scarcely possible to avoid the 

 conclusion that 1 Samuel xi. 1-11 should attach 

 directly to chapter x. 16 (cf. x. V). But the ex- 

 tent to which the historical books are made up 

 of parallel narratives which, though they cover 

 the same period, do not necessarily record the 

 same events, was first clearly seen after Astruc 

 (1753 a. d.) observed that the respective uses 

 of Jehovah (Lord) and Elohim (God) as the 

 name of the Deity afford a criterion by which 

 two documents can be dissected out of the book 

 of Genesis. That the way in which the two 

 names are used can only be due to difference of 

 authorship is now generally admitted, for the alter- 

 nation corresponds with such important duplicates 

 as the two accounts of creation, and is regularly 

 accompanied through a great part of the book 

 by unmistakable peculiarities of language and 

 thought, so that it is still possible to reconstruct 

 at least the Elohim document with a complete- 

 ness which makes its original independence and 

 homogeneity matter of direct observation. The 

 character of this narrative is annalistic; and, 

 where other material fails, blanks are supplied 

 by genealogical lists. Great weight is laid on 

 orderly development, and the name Jehovah is 

 avoided in the history of the patriarchs in order 

 to give proper contrast to the Mosaic period {cf. 

 Genesis xvii. 1; Exodus vi. 3); and, accordingly, 

 we find that the unmistakable secondary marks 

 of this author run through the whole Pentateuch 

 and Joshua, though the exclusive use of Elohim 

 ceases at Exodus vi. Of course the disappear- 

 ance of this criterion makes it less easy to carry 



